Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Urban/rural Ireland...where are we going?

  • 29-02-2012 3:51pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭


    There are a number of threads currently touching on this rural/urban divide and I'd like to start a new one, solely aimed at tackling the heart of the matter.

    There is a worldwide trend towards urbanisation, to which Ireland is not an exception. Ireland has been (slowly, compared to nations who went through the Industrial Revolution) urbanising and this will eventually undoubtedly have an impact upon the type of elected representatives we see in the Dail.

    I personally feel that urban Ireland is under represented, due to the minumum 3 seat constituency system. I think urbanites get a pretty raw deal in Ireland overall-comparitively very poor infrastructure compared to our urban European cousins and at the same time, expected to subsidise rural Ireland.

    We have overcrowded schools using prefabs and schools with a dozen pupils in rural areas. I wonder has there been a tendency for urbanites not to pressure their elected representatives for more infrastructure at the expense of fewer rural subsidies, simply because so many urbanites are still perhaps only one or two generations away from rural Ireland?

    I wonder will this change with so many immigrant background Irish children having no links to rural Ireland, and predominantly living in the cities, never mind the ever growing distance between urbanites of irish origin and their rural ancestors.

    I would like to see income tax reduced nationally and the cities to levy their own taxes and spend them within the cities on desperately needed infrastructure. The rural dwellers should be free to form communes and do likewise. Those choosing to live in complete isolation should be free to pay for their own local roads.

    There is a rumour over in the infrastructure forums that the DoE have instructed councils to draw up a list of tertiary local roads for formal abandonment. I believe ALL local tertiary and most local secondary roads should be formally abandoned and the responsibility for maintenance should be handed over to those who live along them. In urban areas this would obviously be more cost effective for the residents as they would have perhaps 10 metres of road per property to maintain, whereas on effectively private local tertiary roads, this could be many hundreds of metres of road per property.

    I think this is an issue that Ireland needs to face up to. we have been trying to spread the butter far too thinly and it has benefited nobody really. So, will we see an increasing divide at the polls between parties or politicians who wish to focus their representations on urban Ireland? Will ireland forever be a half and half sort of place? Will SF rise to be the standard vote for "working class" estates. Will FG be the future conservative party? Will The Greens rebound to represent "urbanites" and deliver those metros and decent integrated public transport in our cities? Or will we continue the charade that what happened during the civil war has in any way shape or form a bearing on life in modern Ireland?

    I know many rural (and urban) dwellers on here have a polar opposite view to mine and that's fine, but can we at least try to discuss how we see things developing politically, rather than the correctness or otherwise of my or anyone else's position. If we start debating that, the thread will be quickly sidetracked.


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Ireland is not becoming more urban. It has, over the last 20 years, become massively suburban. Dublin, for example, is being left to rot while the focus is on connecting the suburbs outside of Dublin to each other through a "core" where people work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Ireland is not becoming more urban. It has, over the last 20 years, become massively suburban. Dublin, for example, is being left to rot while the focus is on connecting the suburbs outside of Dublin to each other through a "core" where people work.
    I take your point and agree with it, but for the purposes of this thread, I think it's fair to say that when people more to suburbs of any city from a rural location, that this process can be called urbanisation. People living in Swords for example are highly likely to want infrastructure in Dublin City Centre, such as Metro North. You get my drift.


  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    How about people in Clonee or Balbriggan? What are the limitations for deciding what is rural and what is urban?


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Foghladh wrote: »
    How about people in Clonee or Balbriggan? What are the limitations for deciding what is rural and what is urban?
    That's the issue, I would not hesitate to call Kildare a suburb of Dublin now due to the massive amounts of urban sprawl that has occurred over the years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    That's the issue, I would not hesitate to call Kildare a suburb of Dublin now due to the massive amounts of urban sprawl that has occurred over the years.


    I'd agree. Dublin has got to the point with sprawl that it'd be a fairly major task to try to accomodate 'urbanites' with an effective infrastructure system. I take urbanites here to mean those that work and benefit the economy of the city. I know of people that have moved as far afield as Athy and Edenderry to live but that continue to work in the capital. We don't have the densely populated, semi-contained urban centres like Stockholm or London. I don't see of any way to effectively (and fairly) balance a rural/urban divide. It's kind of hard for one to exist independently of the other in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »
    There is a worldwide trend towards urbanisation, to which Ireland is not an exception. Ireland has been (slowly, compared to nations who went through the Industrial Revolution) urbanising and this will eventually undoubtedly have an impact upon the type of elected representatives we see in the Dail.

    In what way ? There is no difference between the various con-men that have emerged from Tipperary, Kerry or Dublin in the shape of Lowry, Healy-Rae & O'Donoghue or Ahern, with Ahern being just as bad for parochial crap with his Bertie Bowl as Lowry was for his casino.

    What do you view as the "type of elected representatives" that we have, and what do you see it changing to ?

    Because if you're talking about having ethical, fair and forward-thinking innovative people in there who don't milk the system through entitlements, I can think of no impact that any urban v rural change would have on that overall goal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    In what way ? There is no difference between the various con-men that have emerged from Tipperary, Kerry or Dublin in the shape of Lowry, Healy-Rae & O'Donoghue or Ahern, with Ahern being just as bad for parochial crap with his Bertie Bowl as Lowry was for his casino.

    What do you view as the "type of elected representatives" that we have, and what do you see it changing to ?

    Because if you're talking about having ethical, fair and forward-thinking innovative people in there who don't milk the system through entitlements, I can think of no impact that any urban v rural change would have on that overall goal.
    Ah Liam, I know only too well that gombeenism isn't an exclusively rural pastime. Dublin ahs elected some right gangsters and I generally view independents as a scourge on the country, even the noble minded ones like Tony Gregory.

    I would like to see an option emerge for me as a "middle class" urban voter to vote for (when I eventually return to living in Ireland, as I don't have a vote there, despite still paying income taxes). I note that in my current home city, things like train delays and poor service are MASSIVE electoral issues that people weigh up when voting.

    Parties and candidates must target their urban audience here and deliver urban improvements, or they're out. I wonder will Irish city dwellers (including those in the 'burbs) start to demand more for their cities, and only elect politicians who focus more on delivering for their cities, with a similar cohort touting for the rural vote. I wonder will we ultimately see a more federal Ireland with cities "going their own way" so to speak.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »

    I would like to see an option emerge for me as a "middle class" urban voter to vote for (when I eventually return to living in Ireland, as I don't have a vote there, despite still paying income taxes). I note that in my current home city, things like train delays and poor service are MASSIVE electoral issues that people weigh up when voting.

    That's a local issue, which has nothing to do with a national parliament.

    You're proposing "suburban estate pump politics", which is not an improvement on what we currently have.

    If train delays are an issue, complain to the equivalent of Iarnród Eireann (or just be grateful that you have an option of a train, which most urban or rural areas in this country don't, since most rail tracks annoying "spoke" from Dublin and are useless for proper inter-city travel) and don't go messing up the national parliament with local issues; that's the sort of crap that has us where we are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    That's a local issue, which has nothing to do with a national parliament.

    You're proposing "suburban estate pump politics", which is not an improvement on what we currently have.

    If train delays are an issue, complain to the equivalent of Iarnród Eireann (or just be grateful that you have an option of a train, which most urban or rural areas in this country don't, since most rail tracks annoying "spoke" from Dublin and are useless for proper inter-city travel) and don't go messing up the national parliament with local issues; that's the sort of crap that has us where we are.
    When I say "elected representatives" I'm not exclusively talking about the Dail.

    I would however disagree that an issue like a Dublin metro, serving an area of a million+ people could be categorised in the same way as a parish hall.

    Do you at least agree that there should be more local taxation, so urban dwellers can determine what is done with their taxes, like here in Germany? Or do you believe in the centralised system at it exists in Ireland?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    That's a local issue, which has nothing to do with a national parliament.

    You're proposing "suburban estate pump politics", which is not an improvement on what we currently have.

    If train delays are an issue, complain to the equivalent of Iarnród Eireann (or just be grateful that you have an option of a train, which most urban or rural areas in this country don't, since most rail tracks annoying "spoke" from Dublin and are useless for proper inter-city travel) and don't go messing up the national parliament with local issues; that's the sort of crap that has us where we are.
    When I say "elected representatives" I'm not exclusively talking about the Dail.

    I would however disagree that an issue like a Dublin metro, serving an area of a million+ people could be categorised in the same way as a parish hall.

    Do you at least agree that there should be more local taxation, so urban dwellers can determine what is done with their taxes, like here in Germany? Or do you believe in the centralised system at it exists in Ireland?

    I would certainly support proper directed taxation, with taxes going to the required services that people avail of.

    I wouldn't support it as ADDITIONAL taxation, however, as I am currently not availing of - and have no future plans to avail of - the Luas or M50 or childrens allowance or social housing or urban sewerage or dole, and there is no local bus service or park or sewerage or community centre or library or public paths & lighting or anything the state provides for urbanites following their choices to have kids they can't afford with people they don't know and jump on housing lists in sprawling soulless estates that you arbitrarily class as "urban", paying a licence for Dublin-focussed media that I mostly don't use.

    So if you want to allocate according to locality and usage, go right ahead. I know that I'll come off better if the above were the case as I'd be happy paying for "public services" of water and roads and a tiny amount towards a part-time local Garda station with one Garda that isn't exactly a reassurance when urban low-lifes steal a car and come robbing.

    Otherwise, accept that taxes are pooled. I've accepted that my taxes are pooled and go towards others in society; I'm just not sure why you object to it.

    One other small point : I'm nearer to the city centre than most of this area's suburbs, and given that you arbitrarily view places 30 miles away in another county as "suburbs", your self-suiting standards would actually be classifying me as "urban"; just so you know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I would certainly support proper directed taxation, with taxes going to the required services that people avail of.

    I wouldn't support it as ADDITIONAL taxation, however, as I am currently not availing of - and have no future plans to avail of - the Luas or M50 or childrens allowance or social housing or urban sewerage or dole, and there is no local bus service or park or sewerage or community centre or library or public paths & lighting or anything the state provides for urbanites following their choices to have kids they can't afford with people they don't know and jump on housing lists in sprawling soulless estates that you arbitrarily class as "urban", paying a licence for Dublin-focussed media that I mostly don't use.

    So if you want to allocate according to locality and usage, go right ahead. I know that I'll come off better if the above were the case as I'd be happy paying for "public services" of water and roads and a tiny amount towards a part-time local Garda station with one Garda that isn't exactly a reassurance when urban low-lifes steal a car and come robbing.

    Otherwise, accept that taxes are pooled. I've accepted that my taxes are pooled and go towards others in society; I'm just not sure why you object to it.

    One other small point : I'm nearer to the city centre than most of this area's suburbs, and given that you arbitrarily view places 30 miles away in another county as "suburbs", your self-suiting standards would actually be classifying me as "urban"; just so you know.
    You seem to be taking this thread very personally Liam. I haven't even classified what I consider urban here. You are free to classify yourself as you please, but expressions like "urban low-lifes" make it fairly clear where you stand.

    Anyway, I do not object to taxes being used in a cost effective manner to deliver services to people, nor do I object to my taxes being used to provide a social safety net to those less fortunate and so on. The principal of my taxes supporting others (genuinely) less fortunate is not at issue, which is what you are implying above.

    I believe that cities pay for themselves twice over. The figures for Dublin and Cork certainly show this. Both cities export vast amounts of money to other parts of Ireland. Given that about half (probably a bit less) the population of the RoI live in the Greater Dublin Region or Cork, I am wondering when these areas will begin to receive their fair share. I am wondering will we see an option for the voters in these cities that advocates greater autonomy for the cities, with tax raising powers and directly elected mayors (akin to London or Berlin) who can actually decide to build the infrastructure that these cities need, instead of constantly subsidising other parts of the country (the status quo).

    I think you grossly under estimate the actual costs associated with one-off housing. The dispersed population means roads maintenance alone is an order of magnitude more expensive to provide. That inefficient Garda station must be maintained and (part-time) staffed and all to achieve what you yourself admit is a poor service. The same goes for the schools with a dozen pupils:the buildings still need to be maintained whether there are a dozen or 500 pupils.

    The figures show that social transfers to non-urban centric counties far outweigh the tax take, so the money is being spent on something, regardless of what you think. You say that the state provides libraries and lighting and sewage etc. but it's not the state, it's the urban area itself. Dublin (as an example) sends vast quantities of money to Connaught counties. Dublin taxes pay for Dublin libraries and street lighting and so on, not "state taxes". Dublin generates taxes, gets a fraction of them to spend, then exports the rest to Connaught mostly.

    If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich.

    Btw, rural German areas sometimes have a very basic bus service (some places might have a couple of buses a day) but these services are paid for by the local communes. Would you be prepared to fund a rural bus service for your area, seeing as you probably wouldn't use it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Do you want the entire population of Ireland living in Dublin. Because if you don't then with your plan Dublin would be the richest and best catered for place in the Ireland by a country mile ;). Anywhere else would lack the money to have decent services. There is always going to be some level of subvention for less populated areas.

    The planning offices can do a lot to design better towns and villages. But having places look after themselves would result in a great Dublin, Cork 2nd etc and on the way down the pecking order until you reach small villages than are potholed kips.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote:
    ......expressions like "urban low-lifes" make it fairly clear where you stand.

    Are you trying to falsely imply that I am labelling ALL urbanites as such ?

    I was specifically referring to the joyriders and thieves that come from urban areas, and so in the correct context the phrasing is accurate.

    Do not try to twist the reference beyond that.
    Given that about half (probably a bit less) the population of the RoI live in the Greater Dublin Region....

    Hang on.....are you talking about urban areas or not ? Because - as I said - I would be living within what would be an equivalent "Greater Limerick Region", and therefore your suggestion would imply that I should have the services that I am paying for such as sewerage or buses.
    You say that the state provides libraries and lighting and sewage etc. but it's not the state, it's the urban area itself.

    False. Tax revenue is centralised and therefore funds for local services are provided by the state. As I've said, my contributions go towards national roads, national children's allowance, etc.

    You mentioned that you don't mind providing a fund for those less fortunate; well those receiving children's allowance - most of whom, by your own admission - are in Dublin & Cork - are not automatically in that bracket, and yet you gloss over that fact. Just as I chose to live where I do and accept the additional costs of my "lifestyle choices", so should they.
    Btw, rural German areas sometimes have a very basic bus service (some places might have a couple of buses a day) but these services are paid for by the local communes. Would you be prepared to fund a rural bus service for your area, seeing as you probably wouldn't use it?

    What makes you assume that I "probably wouldn't use it" ? And given your all-embracing "Greater Dublin Area" and the fact that I am 3 miles from a city centre and therefore in an equivalent area (closer than most of the soulless uburban sprawl) why are you not supporting the claim that such an area should be serviced from taxes, given that you support this for the area that suits your argument ?

    Are you in all honestly just arguing for services in the "Greater Dublin Area" because that is what you want, and disguising it as a general approach for all "greater" areas around cities in order to make it less objectionable ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    woodoo wrote: »
    Do you want the entire population of Ireland living in Dublin. Because if you don't then with your plan Dublin would be the richest and best catered for place in the Ireland by a country mile ;). Anywhere else would lack the money to have decent services. There is always going to be some level of subvention for less populated areas.

    The planning offices can do a lot to design better towns and villages. But having places look after themselves would result in a great Dublin, Cork 2nd etc and on the way down the pecking order until you reach small villages than are potholed kips.
    It's not just Dublin. I'm talking about all of Ireland's cities having the ability to elect their own executive mayors, with tax raising and spending powers.

    The question is, why should sparsely populated areas for one second assume they are entitled to decent services. I would argue that sparsely populated areas would naturally suffer a dearth of services. That should be an advantage of living in an urban area-services on one's doorstep.


  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    murphaph wrote: »
    I believe that cities pay for themselves twice over. The figures for Dublin and Cork certainly show this. Both cities export vast amounts of money to other parts of Ireland. Given that about half (probably a bit less) the population of the RoI live in the Greater Dublin Region or Cork, I am wondering when these areas will begin to receive their fair share. I am wondering will we see an option for the voters in these cities that advocates greater autonomy for the cities, with tax raising powers and directly elected mayors (akin to London or Berlin) who can actually decide to build the infrastructure that these cities need, instead of constantly subsidising other parts of the country (the status quo).

    I think you grossly under estimate the actual costs associated with one-off housing. The dispersed population means roads maintenance alone is an order of magnitude more expensive to provide. That inefficient Garda station must be maintained and (part-time) staffed and all to achieve what you yourself admit is a poor service. The same goes for the schools with a dozen pupils:the buildings still need to be maintained whether there are a dozen or 500 pupils.

    The figures show that social transfers to non-urban centric counties far outweigh the tax take, so the money is being spent on something, regardless of what you think. You say that the state provides libraries and lighting and sewage etc. but it's not the state, it's the urban area itself. Dublin (as an example) sends vast quantities of money to Connaught counties. Dublin taxes pay for Dublin libraries and street lighting and so on, not "state taxes". Dublin generates taxes, gets a fraction of them to spend, then exports the rest to Connaught mostly.

    If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich.

    It kinda sounds like you'd like to abolish the idea of central government and split the country up into a number of autonomous regions.

    Here's a question for you. What exactly happens to the resources of the state that happen to lie outside the Greater Dublin or Cork urban areas?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Are you trying to falsely imply that I am labelling ALL urbanites as such ?

    I was specifically referring to the joyriders and thieves that come from urban areas, and so in the correct context the phrasing is accurate.

    Do not try to twist the reference beyond that.



    Hang on.....are you talking about urban areas or not ? Because - as I said - I would be living within what would be an equivalent "Greater Limerick Region", and therefore your suggestion would imply that I should have the services that I am paying for such as sewerage or buses.
    I'm sure Ireland has seen a rural car thief or drug addict in its time. I'm talking exclusively about communal settlements, so if you live in a one off dwelling, off the mains water supply etc. then I am not referring to you as urban. In the context of the Greater Dublin Region, I would be counting the likes of Leixlip and Maynooth, but not one off houses between the two.

    You chose NOT to live in close proximity to your fellow man for your own reasons. You cannot and presumably do not expect bus services and mains sewage systems to be run out to your self inflicted isolation.

    Do you think Dublin should be entitled to see its tax revenue being spent to a greater degree in Dublin?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote:
    You chose NOT to live in close proximity to your fellow man for your own reasons. You cannot and presumably do not expect bus services and mains sewage systems to be run out to your self inflicted isolation.

    Are you serious ? The entire road has houses all along it - including a number of cul-de-sacs running perpendicular with a number of houses each - and further development was prevented to avoid over-congestion.

    Please stop basing your argument on rubbish by bringing in imagined observations that you clearly know nothing about.

    BTW - I'm on the water mains, so that argument is rubbished too.

    By all means try to support your argument based on facts, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but any more introduction of ridiculous contrived and false assumptions will be considered trolling and not worth replying to.
    Do you think Dublin should be entitled to see its tax revenue being spent to a greater degree in Dublin?

    Only if it's not hijacking the income from other areas that you're arbitrarily choosing to claim, like Leixlip, and only if I don't need to pay for social housing and childrens allowance for those whose "self-imposed parenthood" was their lifestyle choice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Foghladh wrote: »
    It kinda sounds like you'd like to abolish the idea of central government and split the country up into a number of autonomous regions.

    Here's a question for you. What exactly happens to the resources of the state that happen to lie outside the Greater Dublin or Cork urban areas?
    No I wouldn't abolish central government completely. I would leave income taxes under central government control as well as PRSI and social welfare. There would still be an element of social transfers taking place from the cities to rural Ireland, but the cities would see more of their wealth stay within them in the form of better infrastructure (things like quality public transport that are considered essential in other European cities).

    Given that there would still be social transfers from the cities to rural Ireland, I would see no need to change the status of any of the resources of the state (though Ireland is not really endowed with abundant resources anyway, but I would be happy if the Western Seaboard could support itself with wind generated energy or whatever). In any case, natural resources are not generated by the coming together of peoples, as is the case with city generated wealth. Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Are you serious ? The entire road has houses all along it - including a number of cul-de-sacs running perpendicular with a number of houses each - and further development was prevented to avoid over-congestion.

    Please stop basing your argument on rubbish by bringing in imagined observations that you clearly know nothing about.

    BTW - I'm on the water mains, so that argument is rubbished too.

    By all means try to support your argument based in facts, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but any more introduction of ridiculous contrived and false assumptions will be considered trolling and not worth replying to.
    Liam, you've made your own false assumptions too, so less of the indignation please ;)

    You then wouldn't classify your property as rural? Rather suburban?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Are you serious ? The entire road has houses all along it - including a number of cul-de-sacs running perpendicular with a number of houses each - and further development was prevented to avoid over-congestion.

    Please stop basing your argument on rubbish by bringing in imagined observations that you clearly know nothing about.

    BTW - I'm on the water mains, so that argument is rubbished too.

    By all means try to support your argument based in facts, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but any more introduction of ridiculous contrived and false assumptions will be considered trolling and not worth replying to.
    Liam, you've made your own false assumptions too, so less of the indignation please ;)

    You then wouldn't classify your property as rural? Rather suburban?

    You're the one proposing this, you're the one arbitrarily including Leixlip, and you're the one avoiding any mention of social housing and children's allowance.

    Given that you're happy to include Leixlip in order to maximise "your region's" income, you should be doing the definitions.

    So you tell me what - in the context of a "Greater Dublin Area" that you decided includes other counties and their taxes - what a built-up (just not a sprawling estate - "commune" I think your description was) that is between two suburbs as the crow flies and is 3 miles from the dead centre of the city would be classified as in your "ideal" dictionary.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Only if it's not hijacking the income from other areas that you're arbitrarily choosing to claim, like Leixlip, and only if I don't need to pay for social housing and childrens allowance for those whose "self-imposed parenthood" was their lifestyle choice.
    Leixlip would be free to be inside or outside the mayoral region or course, a plebiscite could easily decide that. Leixlip would likely benefit from being "inside the Pale" as it would likely see improvements to it's public transport links with the city and West Dublin industrial areas.

    Rural taxpayers don't pay a red cent towards urban lifestyle single parents (not that they don't also exist in rural Ireland) because rural taxpayers don't cover the costs of the social transfers in rural counties. The difference is made up by the likes of Dublin and Cork taxpayers, who cover the entire cost of all social welfare payments within those urban areas, and THEN cover the shortfall in rural counties.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You're the one proposing this, you're the one arbitrarily including Leixlip, and you're the one avoiding any mention of social housing and children's allowance.

    Given that you're happy to include Leixlip in order to maximise "your region's" income, you should be doing the definitions.

    So you tell me what - in the context of a "Greater Dublin Area" that you decided includes other counties and their taxes - what a built-up (just not a sprawling estate - "commune" I think your description was) that is between two suburbs as the crow flies and is 3 miles from the dead centre of the city would be classified as in your "ideal" dictionary.
    You should ask more questions before assuming anything. No counties or people in the GDA would be forced into anything-nothing would be done without plebiscites being taken, but I assume that many areas (towns and villages) adjacent to Dublin would be voluntarily part of a GDA as they might likely get the DART upgrades that they need for their commuters (who mostly work inside Dublin proper).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Only if it's not hijacking the income from other areas that you're arbitrarily choosing to claim, like Leixlip, and only if I don't need to pay for social housing and childrens allowance for those whose "self-imposed parenthood" was their lifestyle choice.
    Leixlip would be free to be inside or outside the mayoral region or course, a plebiscite could easily decide that. Leixlip would likely benefit from being "inside the Pale" as it would likely see improvements to it's public transport links with the city and West Dublin industrial areas.

    Rural taxpayers don't pay a red cent towards urban lifestyle single parents (not that they don't also exist in rural Ireland) because rural taxpayers don't cover the costs of the social transfers in rural counties. The difference is made up by the likes of Dublin and Cork taxpayers, who cover the entire cost of all social welfare payments within those urban areas, and THEN cover the shortfall in rural counties.

    Interesting - so you are "allowing" Leixlip
    to benefit even though they're not urban ? You're not from there by any chance, or working in Intel ?

    Because - as I've clearly pointed out - Leixlip is far, far further from Dublin than I am from Limerick (about 20 times further) and yet you're happy to bend/break your rules for there to develop their sewerage scheme and bus routes but object to a comparable 2 mile scheme in the "Greater Limerick Area" of a far smaller radius.

    Essentially you're just making up rules as you go along to suit yourself.

    Oh - one other point :
    Rural taxpayers don't pay a red cent towards urban lifestyle single parents

    I didn't single out single parents - I mentioned ALL children's allowances. You claim that I should pay for my lifestyle choices, and I stated that others should pay for theirs.

    Feel free not to answer, but do you have kids ? Is that not as much of a "lifestyle choice" as me deciding where I live ?

    Whether you do or not, do you not think people should foot the bill for that choice themselves ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    murphaph wrote: »
    You should ask more questions before assuming anything. No counties or people in the GDA would be forced into anything-nothing would be done without plebiscites being taken, but I assume that many areas (towns and villages) adjacent to Dublin would be voluntarily part of a GDA as they might likely get the DART upgrades that they need for their commuters (who mostly work inside Dublin proper).

    Laughing my ass off at the irony of the embolden parts!

    So you're happy to provide transport to a city that they chose not to live for them and their neighbours, but not for me and mine.

    As I said, making up rules to suit your argument and predefined agenda.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    murphaph wrote: »

    Given that there would still be social transfers from the cities to rural Ireland, I would see no need to change the status of any of the resources of the state (though Ireland is not really endowed with abundant resources anyway, but I would be happy if the Western Seaboard could support itself with wind generated energy or whatever). In any case, natural resources are not generated by the coming together of peoples, as is the case with city generated wealth. Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.

    So what would you do with farms then, not the small holdings but the big ones the produce the food that is consumed in your so call GDA day in day out. ?

    Surely they could be see as a natural resources that are produced with the labour of those who live around them.

    Or would you now like to include the Golden Vale in your GDA


  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    murphaph wrote: »
    No I wouldn't abolish central government completely. I would leave income taxes under central government control as well as PRSI and social welfare. There would still be an element of social transfers taking place from the cities to rural Ireland, but the cities would see more of their wealth stay within them in the form of better infrastructure (things like quality public transport that are considered essential in other European cities).

    Given that there would still be social transfers from the cities to rural Ireland, I would see no need to change the status of any of the resources of the state (though Ireland is not really endowed with abundant resources anyway, but I would be happy if the Western Seaboard could support itself with wind generated energy or whatever). In any case, natural resources are not generated by the coming together of peoples, as is the case with city generated wealth. Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.


    Natural resources may just be there but in many cases so are the resources currently located in the urban areas like Dublin. Our transport system is geared towards a central hub, our government is, sports facilities, medical. Naturally industry follows for accesibility and those industries feed off the hinterlands. It's rather more a symbiotic relationship and is the result of a government policy going back decades. The abolition of domestic rates back in the 70's and the subsequent central government allocations to local authorities affirmed that intention. Local authorities in Ireland aren't geared to revenue generation and weren't meant to be.

    It seems to me that what you propose would penalise those living outside the urban sprawl and encourage its spread.
    It is different in other european cities, where you get high density compact living and you can develop an efficient infrastructure system. As has been noted earlier Dublin is by no means urban. It is a suburban spread that covers parts of 4 counties and hence cannot be compared with a city of similar population. The cost of providing even a localised transit system in the city centre would prove beyond the capacities of a municipal tax system and I dread to think what the cost of servicing the GDA would be. Suffice to say I wouldn't like to get my share of the tax bill through the letter box. Either way you'd end up with a slightly smaller version of what you claim exists today. Parts of the Dublin area would end up subsidising the transport needs of another. Parts of the area are more cash generating than others.

    Having said that I'm not opposed to a Dublin municipal tax being levied and used in Dublin for whatever they see fit. I am opposed to the idea that if 'X percentage of people live in this area, then X percentage of national revenue should be spent solely on this area'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Natural resources are just there, not because of the labours of people who live near them.[/b]

    Tell that to Shell & the oil companies.....
    :rolleyes:

    Actually, Mayo & Connaught would probably be well sorted if they kept that amount, as per murphman's rules.

    And of course Cork & Munster could have kept the gas field without building that pesky pipeline infrastructure all the way to Dublin through the rural areas, making gas much cheaper for everyone due to proper supply and demand.

    The same with the water from the Shannon and the electricity generated by Ardnacrusha and Moneypoint. Or whatever will be generated by wind & wave power along the west coast when we eventually get our act together.

    Dublin could then build a nuclear reactor - within its GDA of course, right on its own doorstep - to look after its own power needs. And if it can't reach demand we could sell it at €100 per unit.

    All sorted, so! Great idea murphman!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,475 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    murphaph wrote: »
    If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich

    Won't happen. Rural Ireland has become far too reliant on the money. As for the one off housing? People can't see the wood for the trees... it's a disaster, an obvious one to people with a bit of foresight, but, you may as well be talking to the wall if you think you are going to try and change some minds here. But, they (and others are right now) seeing the folly of their ways when it comes to kids, school runs, sports, fuel prices, heating, fragmented communities, increasing price of services etc... There's also an obvious immature hatred of Dublin that is mixed in with a lack of knowledge of the place too. ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    murphaph wrote: »
    If Dublin and Cork could just keep their own tax revenue, then they'd be able to build the infrastructure they require as modern cities, competing for jobs with the likes of Munich

    Won't happen. Rural Ireland has become far too reliant on the money. As for the one off housing? People can't see the wood for the trees... it's a disaster, an obvious one to people with a bit of foresight, but, you may as well be talking to the wall if you think you are going to try and change some minds here. But, they (and others are right now) seeing the folly of their ways when it comes to kids, school runs, sports, fuel prices, heating, fragmented communities, increasing price of services etc... There's also an obvious immature hatred of Dublin that is mixed in with a lack of knowledge of the place too. ;)

    Unbelievably condescending. All that just because some people don't agree with you ?

    Rural living is more expensive, but we get the above for daring to have alternate priorities for our "lifestyle choices".

    Having kids is also a lifestyle choice, and yet there's no-one spouting the above tripe in relation to those expenses, and people accept those of us who choose otherwise and don't expect others to foot the bill HAVING to foot said bills.

    And that's even avoiding the elephant in the room re the state and state banks subsidising and facilitating those who chose to massively overpay for houses and flats in said city.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Foghladh


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Won't happen. Rural Ireland has become far too reliant on the money. As for the one off housing? People can't see the wood for the trees... it's a disaster, an obvious one to people with a bit of foresight, but, you may as well be talking to the wall if you think you are going to try and change some minds here. But, they (and others are right now) seeing the folly of their ways when it comes to kids, school runs, sports, fuel prices, heating, fragmented communities, increasing price of services etc... There's also an obvious immature hatred of Dublin that is mixed in with a lack of knowledge of the place too. ;)


    And yet the irony is that the GDA is little better than one-off housing, albeit on a fairly massive scale. Take the London Greater Area as an example; Approx. 8 million people within an area of approx. 1600 square kilometres. Decent transport systems, a municipal goverment and a fairly contained grouping. The Greater Dublin Area has a population of approx 1.8 million people spread over about 7000 sq kilometres and 4 counties.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement